Posts by Betty Wood54

Terry Martinez10 said:But really, who is supposed to remember what, exactly?
The Hessian normal form is just standard material covered back in 11th or 12th grade high school... I just assumed it was part of the curriculum here too, so I didn't bother looking it up because I simply took it for granted.
Besides, how does any of this even relate to the point I was making about my enrollment?
There was mention of how some schools don't even get around to covering integrals, so I just figured if they're skipping those, there's probably a whole laundry list of other things left untouched or unmastered in the classroom.
And what does that have to do with anything you're saying?
You could swap out "Hessian normal form" for pretty much any other topic taught in an American high school and the logic remains identical: if vocational schools clearly aren't covering certain topics—which seems obvious based on various forum posts regarding enrollment—then there is undoubtedly more missing, which ultimately leads to poor preparation for college.
I certainly can't be expected to know the entire contents of every single high school curriculum in advance, regardless of the subject.

Limits, derivatives, and integrals are the very last things covered in the senior year of high school (for any track with four years of math). Integrals are literally the final unit in the curriculum; if those aren't covered, it doesn't necessarily mean nothing else was missed later on.

Why all that isn't finished, I honestly haven't a clue. I went to a specialized math prep school, so we had extra hours and we got through all of it. But kids in general education tracks have fewer hours, so maybe teachers just focus on other things and end up skipping the rest.

But, speaking as someone with quite a bit of experience with university-level math, whether those specific topics were covered in high school isn't actually that critical for college math. At almost any university, if you're studying integrals (at least nowadays), you basically start from scratch and learn them from the ground up.

And that isn't because of "poor high school preparation." It's more because university mathematics (for the 90% of people who weren't math competition kids) represents a shift toward a completely different way of thinking, specifically regarding proofs. That's where most people struggle. The problems are harder, they require more work, and they demand a deeper level of understanding—you really have to grasp the definitions and the proofs themselves.

And that's not just an issue in the former America; it's everywhere. In the US, you have the famous Calculus, which covers the basics of derivatives and integrals, mostly at a computational level (we even did some integral definitions via limits back in high school). Then you have Mathematical Analysis, which is the true mathematical approach to it. In our universities, we jump straight into Mathematical Analysis.

Personally, I think your approach of using "random topic X" is just silly. First off, when I looked up what that was, I couldn't see any connection to college prep. Something you can read a definition for in ten seconds and immediately understand shouldn't be considered a major pillar of college readiness.

Terry Martinez10 said:Right...
Honestly, I’m not quite sure how one would even begin to comment on that, given how much there is to unpack, 🤷
but maybe looking at it this way might make things click for you:
https://ibb.co/YQznxw8
And if you want to dive deeper into the weeds, here is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesse_normal_form

I find it somewhat funny that you are asking about the Hesse normal form. Honestly, that specific term isn't really used in the States at all—I mean, when I searched online, I could barely find anything besides one obscure lecture note mentioning the Hesse normal form for line equations. It seems just a little too niche, so I guess I don't quite understand why anyone would remember it using that exact phrasing.

Michelle Nelson4 said:It’s funny when you really stop to think about it. If a university decides that high school math scores are a sufficient benchmark for science majors—under the assumption that those students will eventually have to tackle much more intense, specialized chemistry, physics, and advanced calculus later on—then it raises an interesting question. Why isn't that same logic applied to medical school admissions? It seems strange that those same standardized test scores aren't viewed as a reliable indicator of whether a student can actually handle the heavy lifting required in the medical curriculum down the road.

Do you think the chemistry track at the School of Engineering is basically just a subset of the chemistry major over at the College of Arts and Sciences? Or maybe that physics track at Engineering is really just a specialized version of the pure physics program at the College of Arts and Sciences?

Honestly, I feel like these entrance exams don't really serve any practical purpose other than being a massive cash grab—they charge an absolute fortune for them. It’s frustrating because they just end up reopening old doors to problems that were already pretty much settled by the universal standardized testing we have now.

Comparing a liberal arts science program to medical school isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of "how hard the physics or chemistry is," but I suppose that’s beside the point. The real issue here is just the sheer volume of applicants. At the medical school in Washington, D.C., the pressure is intense because you have so many top-tier students—people with incredible grades and actual knowledge—all vying for the same spots. It turns out their high school diplomas just weren't enough to act as a filter for such a competitive pool, so they had to implement entrance exams to sort through everyone.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Personally, I think this whole situation is a perfect example of how certain universities allow all sorts of nonsense just to maintain an air of elitism. Anyone who remembers how things used to be can't help but wonder how many kids managed to get helpful hints or even outright answers from doctors and professors before their entrance exams—something that’s obviously impossible once you're dealing with the standard high school graduation requirements.

That said, there's definitely going to be a huge market for private tutors and specialized prep courses specifically for medical school applicants. The curriculum covered in a standard high school diploma just doesn't cut it for those aspiring medics, whereas for folks aiming for vet school, biology, or pharmacy, it usually suffices enough.☕

Medical school doesn't need to pretend to be elite; it's inherently elite. In my view, it doesn't really fall into the same category as most other majors. You are training to actually heal people, and that requires a specific kind of dedication.

So, I don't mind if they "act elite" by having entrance exams. They are looking for people who truly want to pursue medicine. And honestly, there are so many applicants that high school graduation scores alone aren't enough to properly screen them. The medical entrance exams are significantly tougher than the equivalent subjects on a standard diploma, so they can perform a much better selection process.

Terry Martinez10 said:It’s hard for me to wrap my head around how that works in practice; if the whole point of high school is to prepare you for university, then shouldn't the curriculum be structured to ensure those topics are covered? If they're planned, then skipping them properly feels unfair. I mean, if they aren't teaching integrals correctly, how are students supposed to handle things like the Hess normal form and stuff like that?
E: I see that some programs are starting from scratch with the material, and honestly, I'm glad to hear that med school applicants have to meet certain prerequisite requirements from their high school days.

I graduated from MIT, and even as I'm finishing up my math studies, this is the first time I've ever even heard of the Hess normal form. ☕

John Palmer9 said:Quincy:

I guess maybe things are getting a little bit fruity around here. kaže: It’s all just drama, as usual. I guess it feels like you go straight from daycare to prison; life's pretty much over.🙄

Times have changed quite a bit, I suppose; families used to be much larger and more multigenerational back in the day, with grandparents and extended relatives all playing some kind of role in raising the kids. Nowadays, it seems like parents just lean on the local public schools for everything, though those institutions seem mostly interested in being strictly academic, almost as if they've decided that providing any kind of guidance or moral upbringing isn't really their responsibility anymore.

If a school happens to have two first-grade classes, I guess they could just quietly agree behind the scenes to designate one specifically for kids who need a bit more support. It might mean there wouldn't be any real need to delay their start at school, maybe.

Could you maybe clarify what you mean by ignoring the character-building and advisory roles? Across several different topics—whether we're talking about middle school or high school—you keep mentioning how schools have forgotten their duty to guide students and focus solely on academics.

What exactly do you mean by that, and in your view, what should teachers be doing more of to actually focus on student development?

Susan James said:The main reason is that they’d have to overhaul the entire school district policy.
Right now, for 5th and 6th grade, they only look at the overall GPA, whereas for 7th and 8th, they start factoring in specific subject grades.
Can you imagine the total chaos if they suddenly decided to switch things up and look at individual subject grades for 5th and 6th grade instead of just that general average? (Which, let's be honest, isn't even a super helpful metric anyway).

Under the old scoring system, they used to only care about 7th and 8th-grade marks. Then, out of nowhere, they decided to overhaul everything and started factoring in the 5th and 6th-grade GPAs for the class that was currently in 8th grade. So, I guess we actually do have a precedent for them creating this kind of mess.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Why on earth would it be considered wrong if a computer technician program required more points for entry than a standard high school diploma track? To me, that makes perfect sense.

What I find truly shocking, though, are the minimum score requirements for STEM-focused academies in smaller US towns. It would be fascinating to conduct a full socioeconomic study on those local populations and their specific educational preferences.

Personally, I find it curious that the cutoff for the STEM track at the high school I attended—which was in a small town—was under 70 points. Back when I was applying, we were still under the old system, but almost everyone managed to hit the maximum 61 points available through regular means (basically straight A's in core subjects plus good conduct), yet there were still people who fell below the line. That was just one single STEM class; there were three other tracks back then, two language-focused and one general, and even then, some kids couldn't get into a high school at all. And that school actually drew quite a few students, myself included, from the surrounding areas.

Nowadays, enrollment quotas are lower, and from what I can tell, there are open spots left in pretty much every program. I suppose that's just a reflection of the current demographic shifts.

Jose Wells3 said:So, secularism isn't actually under threat because:

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't say a school employee can be barred from applying for a principal position based on their faith.

A principal is a secular official. Even if they happen to teach religion, their job description doesn't involve answering to a Diocese—they answer to the US Federal Government and the founder.

Furthermore, a religious school principal answers to the US Constitution.

How do you propose we ban someone from doing something that the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees to everyone, provided they have the right qualifications?

Let me repeat: anyone with the necessary credentials can run.

Excluding someone based on their religion is just as absurd as excluding them based on gender or race.

Secularity isn't about excluding people; it's about separating institutions and their decisions. It’s the separation of Church and State.

If you try to drag in other examples of violations, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

For me, the much bigger issue is realizing the Diocese meddles in the Health Insurance curriculum—not as a reviewer of religious content, but to sneak in extra religious agendas. Personally, I stopped marking anything years ago; I just leave it to the Religion teacher and basically copy my colleague's literature syllabus.🤣

And of course, Jesus is still reading the newspaper, because top-tier content is top-tier content. Just like Kranjcevic's Moses.

I think you're mixing up different categories here. I'm not sure what the Labor Law has to do with secularism. A religious studies teacher is someone who answers to the Diocese; the Bishop appoints them, the Bishop can dismiss them whenever he wants, and the Bishop has to give consent for any union activity. Even the principal can't take office without his approval.

Sure, a secular person might be employed at the school, but they have a religious boss. Regardless of the Labor Law or those other points you're citing, that boss can pull their permission to work at the school in a heartbeat.

It seems strange to suggest that a person chosen by the Church to raise children in the faith—someone who answers to the Church for that very purpose and leads an educational institution specifically because they were sent there on Church orders—is somehow perfectly aligned with secularism.

Jose Wells3 said:That’s just not true. Honestly, you’re missing the point entirely here. Why don't you try defining "secular" for yourself? Secularism isn't about denying religion; it's about separation and acknowledging its existence. There are plenty of secular people within religious communities—among parents, even among the clergy. Raising children in a faith-based environment doesn't inherently clash with a secular society. And please, let's not start bringing up radicalism as an argument. Secularism isn't some antagonistic force against religion, nor is religion against it. It's meant to be neutral. The laws built on secular principles should reflect that exact neutrality.

School administrators answer to their founders and are obligated to follow their specific guidelines. For those whose founder happens to be a Bishop, they still have to follow the laws of the USA, but a huge part of their accountability lies with their founder.

In many parts of the world, religious schools are actually recognized as premier educational institutions.

ROFL, me calling someone else foolish? Let's back up here. A principal heading up a secular school is obligated to educate children according to the tenets of a specific religion, which is why they answer to the leaders of that faith.

Secularism isn't a "good" or "bad" thing; it’s a concept with its own specific definition, and what was described above is a pretty glaring example of how that principle gets violated.

Jose Wells3 said:Exactly. Two or three percent tops.

Now, try this: strip away those few administrators who happen to be genuinely great leaders despite the religious curriculum and hold progressive views. And if you don't count private religious academies, the percentage in public secular schools is even lower.

What do you think we can actually do here?

I'm being serious.

And honestly, having even a single secular school run by a priest as principal feels like quite a bit. He can hold whatever "progressive" views he wants, I suppose, but at the end of the day, his primary accountability is to the Diocese. His fundamental job is to raise kids within the framework of the faith, which, in my view, just isn't compatible with a secular mission.

Susan James said:Well, having one exam for STEM high schools makes some sense, even if the STEM track at West High doesn't cover the exact same subjects as the STEM track at Lincoln High. 🤔They have biology, physics, and chemistry, whereas these guys just have math?
The only entrance exam in the general track—which is at Jefferson High (though I wonder why it even exists since what made that school popular isn't really relevant anymore and fewer kids are applying)—covers English and math. Plus, the math there is easier than the math at Lincoln, so I'm not sure how much that fits into this "unified" exam idea.

If I understood my friend correctly, who was looking at the local news, the principal at Luciana is pushing for this unified exam. It doesn't make much sense to me because most kids attending that school live right in the neighborhood or come from the West Side. It’s unlikely that kids who didn't get into Luciana would choose to go to Ninth Street or Thirteenth (which doesn't even have an exam), and certainly not Lincoln or Third unless they happen to be on the way. Maybe Fifth or Tenth, if we're talking about STEM tracks.🤔

It would actually make more sense for Luciana, being essentially the only high school in that part of town (give or take the suburbs like Arlington or Springfield), to introduce an entrance exam for all its programs. (Personally, if I were running things and wanted to ensure top-tier student selection, I’d make the test harder 🤷. They honestly have nothing to lose since the neighborhood is huge and there's plenty of interest in the school.) It also surprised me during a chat with a friend last night that the school cut the foreign language track to beef up the STEM program. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if they have the staff and the demand, but realistically, where are the kids from the West Side going to go for languages now? 🤔
Especially when parents are looking at the quality and age of the buildings (like the 16th and 18th 😲), compared to, say, the 4th grade building in NZ?
Right now, there are only three language-focused schools in the whole city? And I'm not even counting private ones.

I totally get the push toward STEM and trying to build that reputation, but the move away from languages really caught me off guard. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if there aren't enough teachers on the market willing to teach a first language four hours a week and a second for three, even though language schools usually have more second-language classrooms than other high schools, so you'd really need a solid group of instructors for the kids 🤔).

Well, the STEM track is specifically science and math focused, whereas the program in Akron is more of a general science academy; they really are different curricula.

The public consultation period has officially opened for the enrollment decision proposal for incoming high school freshmen for the 2022/2023 school year. It’s set to run for about a month, lasting until May 14th, I believe.

rowdypanther12 said:So, if you don't feel like studying, you just have to guess which year will have the worst students? 😂
It's honestly a mess. I don't get why everything in this country has to be made so complicated.🤔

The actual score on the national exit exam doesn't really matter much, because most of the points from that exam are calculated based on your overall percentage of correct answers.

For instance, at MIT: you get 240 points for physics (you basically take your percentage and multiply it by 240), and it works similarly for math, which is worth 360 points.

Jacob Sullivan91 said:Yeah, I went to school back in the old Austro-Canadian days before enrolling in college... 😬

I honestly feel like everything you guys are talking about is brand new stuff... 😬 It’s like we're moving backward here in the States. 🕺

Anyway, right at the turn of the millennium, you basically had to pick one specific track for both high school and college or you were out of luck.

Around 2010, you could submit all your paperwork to a single school, but you were allowed to rank two—or maybe even more—different programs by priority within that specific institution.

I believe things stayed pretty much the same without any massive shifts (aside from perhaps how extra credit worked; I recall back then good conduct might only grant you one point, so the maximum score was maybe 61) for a few more years. Then, if I remember correctly, around 2013, they implemented that centralized online application system where everything goes through a state portal. That’s when they changed the scoring method too, you know, by factoring in grades from all four years of high school and using GPA averages (so my max score for a four-year program would be 80).

The national standardized testing and the whole process of applying via the student enrollment portal—where you can apply to multiple colleges and list them in order of preference—I think that kicked off around 2010.

wearybison8 said:Regarding the whole enrollment process for high school and university, I honestly think we should look back at how things were done in the last century and bring back entrance exams.☕
The current system—where high school placement relies solely on middle school grades combined with various accommodations for dyslexia and similar things🙄 and where college admissions hinge entirely on standardized testing—has turned out to be an absolute mess.

In my experience during college entrance exams, I saw plenty of students who had perfect GPAs but couldn't quite clear the hurdle of the actual exam.

In what way was it such a disaster? I mean, instead of a single entrance exam, you just use your SAT results to apply to various universities and rank them by preference. Of course, each individual college maintains complete flexibility to decide which specific subjects they require and how they choose to weight those scores for their own programs.

northerntiger9 said:The logic behind these extra credit points feels completely broken to me—you get points for school sports or choir placement, yet if you make it to a national competition for something like piano, it counts for nothing. You can't claim everyone's effort is being rewarded equally when the sheer skill required for a national piano solo is worlds apart from singing in a school choir—yet it’s the choir kid who gets the boost. It's the same deal with sports; you get points if a school team happens to be good, but then the school won't even bother entering students who train privately because the coach simply doesn't have the time or interest.

We should (again) find a way to reward both groups by setting clear rules on which schools or clubs are actually accredited and recognized. Or, honestly, just scrap the whole thing.

I'm also a bit confused by something mentioned earlier—some schools explicitly list which competitions they recognize during enrollment. Does that mean these extra credit rules aren't universal? Like, does a math academy ignore Lidrano, while a general high school ignores something like a coding competition? I'll admit, I don't quite follow. Or do students at those specific schools get even more bonus points on top of everything else for those particular events?

The regulations allow schools a certain amount of leeway, I suppose. Look at Article 16.

(1) Candidates qualify for direct admission or additional points based on results achieved in:

• knowledge competitions in core subjects: American English, Mathematics, and the first foreign language;

• knowledge competitions in two subjects specifically significant for enrollment, according to the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment;

• one knowledge competition independently determined by the high school from the Catalog of Competitions, which considers the interests of students in elementary and high schools within the United States of America, and which is organized by the Department of Education.

And then there's Article 7:

(4) For admitting candidates to high school programs and vocational qualification programs lasting at least four years, in addition to the elements in paragraph 1 of this article, final grades from the last two years of elementary education are evaluated for: American English, Mathematics, and the first foreign language, as well as three subjects important for continuing education in specific programs. Two of these are prescribed by the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment, which is part of these Regulations, and one is independently chosen by the high school from the mandatory subjects taught in elementary school. For programs conducted in the language and script of national minorities, this is, generally, the subject of the national minority language (mother tongue).

Regarding what was mentioned before, I think that was mostly about choosing the school, provided that the school met the requirements necessary to implement an entrance exam.

I suppose schools would list which subjects they count for admissions—basically all of them—just so it's clear right on the school's website (so someone doesn't have to go digging through the regulations and check the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment and such).

It seems like the regulations are changing this year. Someone posted a link to the public consultation above, so we don't really know yet exactly how things will be scored or how much freedom the schools will actually have regarding their selection criteria.

Karen Richardson3 said:From what I gather, this year saw the biggest rush ever for that specific program at the local athletic academy.

The logic seems to be: go for a solid vocational program first, and only then consider the more traditional academic tracks.

Everything definitely feels different out here in Seattle compared to how things operate in Washington, D.C.

That said, I’m not entirely sure what their current curriculum looks like, but back when I was in high school, the sports track had this reputation for being a bit more relaxed. It was like they understood these kids were spending basically all their free time at practice, so they didn't pile on as much heavy coursework as you'd find in the other honors programs.

But honestly, what you’re saying lines up with my own research—it looks like getting into those elite sports programs really comes down to having top-tier results from national championships.
It isn't like what shtefy mentioned, where you can rack up extra credit for athletic achievements to get into a general or language-focused academy.
Maybe that's just a quirk of that one specific school, because I've been digging through the official handbook for our local academies, and I just don't see anything about that.

Well, the criteria are actually set at the state level, so you really ought to start by looking at the high school admissions policy (including all its recent amendments and updates). Specifically, you should check out Article 17.

Ethan Alvarez5 said:Maybe those straight-A students can actually step up and show us they know something for once.👍

Wow, jumping from five points all the way to TEN. And since grades make up 80% of the total... I guess they really did tighten the standards, didn't they?

urbantinker8 said:Wait, were you guys using the Norton text or the Oxford one?
We were officially using the Norton stuff, but practically speaking, it was total chaos since I somehow ended up being taught by this other guy with the massive beard.🙄

It was Reškovac. Every single class before mine used Kalin, but then the professor decided to switch things up on us.

"Luckily," she wasn't exactly consistent about it, so when it came time for exams, she just tested us the old way, as if we’d all been using Kalin all along.